• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Using Medical Emergency Teams to detect preventable adverse events.运用医疗应急团队发现可预防的不良事件。
Crit Care. 2009;13(4):R126. doi: 10.1186/cc7983. Epub 2009 Jul 30.
2
Expanding the scope of Critical Care Rapid Response Teams: a feasible approach to identify adverse events. A prospective observational cohort.扩大重症监护快速反应小组的范围:一种识别不良事件的可行方法。一项前瞻性观察队列研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Dec;24(12):764-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003833. Epub 2015 Jun 8.
3
One fourth of unplanned transfers to a higher level of care are associated with a highly preventable adverse event: a patient record review in six Belgian hospitals.在比利时六家医院进行的一项患者记录审查发现,四分之一的非计划性转至更高护理级别的情况与高度可预防的不良事件相关。
Crit Care Med. 2015 May;43(5):1053-61. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000932.
4
Developing and evaluating the success of a family activated medical emergency team: a quality improvement report.建立并评估家庭激活医疗急救团队的成效:一份质量改进报告。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Mar;24(3):203-11. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003001. Epub 2014 Dec 16.
5
The safety of hospital stroke care.医院中风护理的安全性。
Neurology. 2007 Feb 20;68(8):550-5. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000254992.39919.2e.
6
Use of medical emergency team (MET) responses to detect medical errors.利用医疗应急团队(MET)的应对措施来检测医疗差错。
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Aug;13(4):255-9. doi: 10.1136/qhc.13.4.255.
7
Adverse events following an emergency department visit.急诊科就诊后的不良事件。
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Feb;16(1):17-22. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.017384.
8
Impact of patient communication problems on the risk of preventable adverse events in acute care settings.患者沟通问题对急性护理环境中可预防不良事件风险的影响。
CMAJ. 2008 Jun 3;178(12):1555-62. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070690.
9
Uncovering system errors using a rapid response team: cross-coverage caught in the crossfire.利用快速反应小组发现系统错误:交叉覆盖陷入交火之中。
J Trauma. 2009 Jul;67(1):173-8; discussion 178-9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31819ea514.
10
The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital.出院后影响患者的不良事件的发生率和严重程度。
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):161-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00007.

引用本文的文献

1
Development, deployment, and continuous monitoring of a machine learning model to predict respiratory failure in critically ill patients.开发、部署和持续监测用于预测重症患者呼吸衰竭的机器学习模型。
JAMIA Open. 2024 Dec 11;7(4):ooae141. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae141. eCollection 2024 Dec.
2
Development of a novel rapid response event review process for quality improvement.开发一种新的快速反应事件审查流程,以进行质量改进。
BMJ Open Qual. 2024 Jun 10;13(2):e002664. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002664.
3
An electronic trigger based on care escalation to identify preventable adverse events in hospitalised patients.基于护理升级的电子触发器,以识别住院患者中可预防的不良事件。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar;27(3):241-246. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006975. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
4
A Survey of Hospitals That Participated in a Statewide Collaborative to Implement and Sustain Rapid Response Teams.一项关于参与全州范围内合作以实施和维持快速反应小组的医院的调查。
J Healthc Qual. 2016 Jul-Aug;38(4):202-12. doi: 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000047.
5
Deployment of rapid response teams by 31 hospitals in a statewide collaborative.全州范围内31家医院合作组建快速反应小组。
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Apr;41(4):186-91. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41024-4.
6
[Current concepts of patient safety: rapid response system].
Unfallchirurg. 2010 Mar;113(3):239-46. doi: 10.1007/s00113-009-1734-7.
7
Medical emergency teams and rapid response triggers--the ongoing quest for the 'perfect' patient safety system.医疗应急团队与快速反应触发机制——对“完美”患者安全系统的不懈追求。
Crit Care. 2009;13(5):420. doi: 10.1186/cc8052. Epub 2009 Oct 9.
8
The evolving story of medical emergency teams in quality improvement.医疗急救团队在质量改进方面的发展历程。
Crit Care. 2009;13(5):194. doi: 10.1186/cc8033. Epub 2009 Oct 12.

本文引用的文献

1
Hospital-wide code rates and mortality before and after implementation of a rapid response team.实施快速反应小组前后全院范围的抢救率及死亡率
JAMA. 2008 Dec 3;300(21):2506-13. doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.715.
2
Introduction of medical emergency teams in Australia and New Zealand: a multi-centre study.澳大利亚和新西兰医疗应急团队的引入:一项多中心研究。
Crit Care. 2008;12(2):R46. doi: 10.1186/cc6857. Epub 2008 Apr 7.
3
Combining ratings from multiple physician reviewers helped to overcome the uncertainty associated with adverse event classification.综合多位医生评审员的评分有助于克服与不良事件分类相关的不确定性。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;60(9):892-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.019. Epub 2007 Apr 8.
4
Tracking progress in patient safety: an elusive target.追踪患者安全进展:一个难以实现的目标。
JAMA. 2006 Aug 9;296(6):696-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.6.696.
5
Introduction of a rapid response system: why we are glad we MET.快速反应系统的引入:为何我们很高兴我们遇到了(MET,可能是某个特定的医疗紧急情况团队之类的缩写,具体含义需结合上下文确定)。
Crit Care. 2006 Feb;10(1):121. doi: 10.1186/cc4841.
6
The 100,000 lives campaign: setting a goal and a deadline for improving health care quality.“拯救十万生命”运动:设定改善医疗质量的目标和期限。
JAMA. 2006 Jan 18;295(3):324-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.3.324.
7
Accidental deaths, saved lives, and improved quality.意外死亡、挽救生命与质量提升。
N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 29;353(13):1405-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb051157.
8
The Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care.重症监护安全研究:重症监护中不良事件及严重医疗差错的发生率与性质
Crit Care Med. 2005 Aug;33(8):1694-700. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000171609.91035.bd.
9
Introduction of the medical emergency team (MET) system: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.医疗急救团队(MET)系统的引入:一项整群随机对照试验。
Lancet. 2005;365(9477):2091-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66733-5.
10
A comparison of antecedents to cardiac arrests, deaths and emergency intensive care admissions in Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom--the ACADEMIA study.澳大利亚、新西兰和英国心脏骤停、死亡及急诊重症监护入院情况的前因比较——学术研究
Resuscitation. 2004 Sep;62(3):275-82. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.05.016.

运用医疗应急团队发现可预防的不良事件。

Using Medical Emergency Teams to detect preventable adverse events.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.

出版信息

Crit Care. 2009;13(4):R126. doi: 10.1186/cc7983. Epub 2009 Jul 30.

DOI:10.1186/cc7983
PMID:19643017
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2750180/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Medical Emergency Teams (METs), also known as Rapid Response Teams, are recommended as a patient safety measure. A potential benefit of implementing an MET is the capacity to systematically assess preventable adverse events, which are defined as poor outcomes caused by errors or system design flaws. We describe how we used MET calls to systematically identify preventable adverse events in an academic tertiary care hospital, and describe our surveillance results.

METHODS

For four weeks we collected standard information on consecutive MET calls. Within a week of the MET call, a multi-disciplinary team reviewed the information and rated the cause of the outcome using a previously developed rating scale. We classified the type and severity of the preventable adverse event.

RESULTS

We captured information on all 65 MET calls occurring during the study period. Of these, 16 (24%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16%-36%) were felt to be preventable adverse events. The most common cause of the preventable adverse events was error in providing appropriate therapy despite an accurate diagnosis. One service accounted for a disproportionate number of preventable adverse events (n = 5, [31%, 95% CI 14%-56%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our method of reviewing MET calls was easy to implement and yielded important results. Hospitals maintaining an MET can use our method as a preventable adverse event detection system at little additional cost.

摘要

简介

医疗急救团队(METs),也称为快速反应团队,被推荐作为一项患者安全措施。实施 MET 的一个潜在好处是能够系统地评估可预防的不良事件,这些事件被定义为由错误或系统设计缺陷导致的不良结果。我们描述了如何使用 MET 呼叫来系统地识别学术性三级保健医院中的可预防不良事件,并描述了我们的监测结果。

方法

在四周的时间里,我们连续收集了关于 MET 呼叫的标准信息。在 MET 呼叫后的一周内,一个多学科小组会审查信息,并使用先前开发的评分量表对结果的原因进行评分。我们对可预防不良事件的类型和严重程度进行了分类。

结果

我们收集了研究期间发生的所有 65 次 MET 呼叫的信息。其中,16 次(24%,95%置信区间[CI] 16%-36%)被认为是可预防的不良事件。可预防不良事件的最常见原因是尽管诊断准确,但提供的治疗方法不当。一个科室的可预防不良事件数量不成比例(n = 5,[31%,95% CI 14%-56%])。

结论

我们审查 MET 呼叫的方法易于实施,并产生了重要结果。维护 MET 的医院可以以较低的额外成本使用我们的方法作为可预防不良事件的检测系统。